From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 13:29:48 GMT
[Case]
Matt, is doing a fine job with this but I can't resist adding that purpose
is another of those hard to define terms that tend to subtract more than it
adds to our understanding. I don't even agree that continued existance is a
purpose. Purpose in most definitions implies a goal and intentionality. To
say nature has a purpose suggests that it is being directed toward
something. This is letting teleology in the back door by suggesting that
some desired future state is determining present events.
I think there is purpose in nature in so far as we as a species define our
own purpose and to the extent that we are a part of nature, it could be said
that nature has purpose. But to say that the wind blows fast because it is
in a hurry or that a tree stretches forth its branches because it intends to
soak up sunlight is crossing the line.
Purpose like beauty is intrinstic to us. They are important to us but they
are emergant properties of us which are not fruitfully projected to the rest
of nature.
----------------------------
Platt said:Since we as much a part of nature as rocks and trees and the
weather,
and
since we exhibit purpose I don't see much of leap to suggest nature is
purposeful. I would ask, "What is the purpose of saying nature has no
purpose?"
Poot: I think first I should clarify what I mean as "purpose" . I want to
stress the differences in the word, between what human minds have concocted
as "purpose" , which I, and others seem to experience as some sort of
intangible guildeline(maybe not the right word) set before us. There is
also the purpose of individual events (i.e gathering food to satisfy
hunger, or something ).
What I mean when I say "Nature has no purpose, etc. has no purpose" is that
when you look at things completely abstractly, detaching from associations
of the static levels, then there is no purpose for it.
Can you say what the ultimate purpose of the existence of anything is? to
be purposeful, something must achieve some sort of endcome, and have some
sort of start. As far as we know, and will ever know (never say never
though I guess) will not be able to ascertain whether there should be, or
ever was a starting point for the universe, for we know that It will never
end (even if everything collapses back to a singularity , or into
nothingness, existence still remains).
dont have much more time, hope this helps.
matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 23 2005 - 14:09:37 GMT